Constitutional Court of Thailand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Constitutional Court
ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญ
ThaiConCourt-Seal-002.jpg
Established 11 October 1997
Country Thailand
Location Government Complex Commemorating His Majesty the King's 80th Birthday Anniversary, 5 December, BE 2550 (2007), Group A, No. 120, Village 3, Chaeng Watthana Road, Thung Song Hong Subdistrict, Lak Si District, Bangkok
Composition method Selection
Authorized by
Number of positions 1 president and 8 fellow judges (9 in total)
Annual budget
  • THB 176,982,100 (2013)[1]
  • THB 195,526,400 (2014)[2]
Website www.constitutionalcourt.or.th
President of the Court
Currently Vacant
Garuda Emblem of Thailand.svg
This article is part of a series on the
politics and government of
Thailand
Thailand flag bar.svg

The Constitutional Court (Thai: ศาลรัฐธรรมนูญ; RTGS: San Rattha Thammanun; Thai pronunciation: [sǎːn•rat•tʰà•tʰam•má•nuːn]) is an independent Thai court originally founded under the 1997 Constitution with jurisdiction over the constitutionality of parliamentary acts, royal decrees, draft legislation, as well as the appointment and removal of public officials and issues regarding political parties. The current court was established by the 2007 Constitution and is part of the judicial branch of the Thai national government.

The court, along with the 1997 Constitution, was dissolved and replaced by a Constitutional Tribunal in 2006 following the coup d'État. While the Constitutional Court had 15 members, 7 from the judiciary and 8 selected by a special panel, the Constitution Tribunal had 9 members, all from the judiciary.[3] A similar institution, consisting of 9 members, was again established by the 2007 Constitution.

The Constitutional Court has provoked much public debate, both regarding the court's jurisdiction and composition as well as the initial selection of justices. A long-standing issue has been the degree of control exerted by the judiciary over the court[citation needed].

The decisions of the court are final and inappealable. The decisions also bind every state organ, including the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers and other courts.[4]

The various versions of the court have made several significant decisions. These included the 1999 decision that deputy minister of agriculture Newin Chidchop could retain his cabinet seat after being sentenced to imprisonment for defamation, the 2001 acquittal of Thaksin Shinawatra for filing an incomplete statement regarding his wealth, with the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the 2003 invalidation of Jaruvan Maintaka appointment as auditor-general, the 2007 dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai political party, and the 2014 removal of prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra from office.

Origins and controversy[edit]

Former seat of the court at Lord Rattanathibet's Mansion on Chak Phet Road, Phra Nakhon District, Bangkok.

Drafting of the 1997 Constitution[edit]

The creation of the Constitutional Court was the subject of much debate during the 1996-1997 drafting of the current Constitution of Thailand.[5] Senior judges rigorously opposed the concept on the grounds that constitutional and judicial review should remain the prerogative of the Supreme Court and that a constitutional court would create a fourth branch of government more powerful than the judiciary, legislature, or executive. Judges stated their fear over political interference in the selection and impeachment of judges. The Constitution Drafting Assembly eventually made several concessions regarding the composition and powers of the Court.

Jurisdiction[edit]

The Constitution did not give the Constitutional Court the authority to overrule a final judgment of the Supreme Court. An affected party, or a court, could request the opinion from the Constitutional Court if they believed a case involved a constitutional issue. The court where the initial action was pending would stay its proceedings until the Constitutional Court issued its decision. Constitutional Court decisions would have no retroactive effect on previous decisions of the regular courts.

The Constitution also did not give the Constitutional Court the authority to rule on any case in which the Constitution did not specifically delegate an agency the power to adjudicate.

Impeachment[edit]

The Constitution allowed individual justices to be the subject of impeachment proceedings with the vote of one fourth of the members of the House or with 50,000 approval of petitioners. A vote of three fifths of the Senate is required for impeachment. Earlier drafts had required votes of only 10% of the combined House and Senate to call for a vote of impeachment, and votes of three fifths of the combined Parliament to dismiss a justice.

Appointment[edit]

The Constitution gave the judiciary a strong influence over the composition of the Constitutional Court. Originally, the Court was to have 9 justices comprising six legal experts and three political science experts. A panel of 17 persons would propose 18 names from which Parliament would elect the 9 justices. The panel president would be the president of the Supreme Court, the panel itself would have included 4 political party representatives. The CDA finally compromised and allowed 7 of the justices to be selected by the judiciary, while the remaining 8 justices would be selected by the Senate from a list of Supreme Court nominees.[citation needed]

Appointment of the first Constitutional Court[edit]

The appointment of the first Constitutional Court following the promulgation of the constitution in 1997 was 4-month controversy pitting the Senate against the Supreme Court.[5] A key issue was the Senate's authority to review the backgrounds of judicial nominees and reject nominees deemed inappropriate or unqualified.

Appointment of Amphorn Thongprayoon[edit]

After receiving the Supreme Court's list of nominees, the Senate created a committee to review the nominees' credentials and backgrounds.[5] On 24 November 1997, the Senate voted to remove the name of Supreme Court vice-president Amphorn Thongprayoon, on the grounds that his credentials were dubious and on allegations that he had defaulted on 3 million THB in debt. The Supreme Court was furious, arguing the Constitution did not empower the Senate to do background checks or to reject Supreme Court nominees. The Supreme Court requested a ruling from the Constitutional Tribunal chaired by the House speaker. On 8 January 1998, in a 6:3 vote, the Tribunal ruled the Senate did not have the authority to do background checks or reject the Supreme Court's nominees. The Tribunal ruled that the Senate's review powers were limited to examining the records of the nominees and electing half of those nominees for appointment.

Immediately after the Supreme Court had filed its request to the Tribunal, Justice Amphorn withdrew his name. After the Tribunal's ruling, the Supreme Court elected justice Jumpol na Songkhla on 9 January 1998 to replace Amphorn. The Senate ignored the Tribunal's ruling and proceeded to review Jumphol’s background and delayed a vote to accept his nomination for 7 days so that the Senate evaluate Jumphol. Finding no problems, the Senate proceeded to acknowledge his appointment to the Court on 23 January 1998.

Appointment of Ukrit Mongkolnavin[edit]

The appointment of former Senate and Parliament president Ukrit Mongkolnavin was especially problematic.[5] The Senate had initially elected Ukrit from the list of ten legal specialists nominated by the selection panel, despite claims from democracy activists that Ukrit was unqualified to guard the constitution because he had served dictators while president of Parliament under the 1991-1992 military government of the National Peacekeeping Council.

Stung by the Senate rejection of Amphorn Thongprayoon, the two Bangkok Civil Court judges, Sriampron Salikhup and Pajjapol Sanehasangkhom, petitioned the Constitutional Tribunal to disqualify Ukrit on a legal technicality. They argued that Ukrit only had an honorary professorship at Chulalongkorn University, while the 1997 Constitution specifically specifies that a nominee, if not meeting other criteria, must be at least a professor. Echoing the Senate's rejection of Amphorn, the judges also alleged that Ukrit was involved in a multi-million baht lawsuit over a golf course. On January 10, 1998 the Tribunal ruled that the judges were not affected parties and therefore they had no right to request a ruling. Nevertheless, the Parliament president invoked his power as chairman of the Tribunal to ask the Senate to reconsider Ukrit's nomination.

On January 19, 1998, the Senate reaffirmed Ukrit's qualifications, noting that his professorship was special only because he was not a government official. Under Chulalongkorn's regulations, he had the academic status of a full professor.

This position inflamed activists and the judiciary, and prompted the Parliament president on January 21 to invoke his authority under Article 266 of the 1997 Constitution to order the Constitutional Tribunal to consider the issue. On February 8, in a 4:3 vote, the Tribunal ruled that Ukrit's special professorship did not qualify him for a seat in the Constitutional Court. The Tribunal noted that Chulalongkorn criteria for honorary professor were different from their criteria for academic professors, as intended by the Constitution. The Senate ended up electing Komain Patarapirom to replace Ukrit.

Jurisdiction[edit]

Under the 2007 Constitution, the Court is competent to address the following:[6]

# Matters Sections of the Constitution allowing their institution Eligible petitioners Type
1 A petition for a decision as to whether a resolution or regulation of a political party to which the petitioner belongs
  1. is contrary to his status and functions as representative,
  2. or is contrary to the fundamental principles of the democratic regime of government with the king as head of State
Section 65, paragraph 3 A member of the political party in question Political party
2 A petition for a decision as to whether any person or political party exercises the constitutional rights and freedoms
  1. to undermine the democratic regime of government with the king as head of State,
  2. or to acquire the national government power by the means not recognised by the Constitution
Section 68 Any person Constitutional defence
3 A petition for a decision as to whether any representative or senator loses his membership by operation of the Constitution Section 91 At least one tenth of the existing representatives or senators Membership
4 A petition for a decision as to whether a political party resolution terminating any representative's membership in the party
  1. is contrary to his status and functions as representative,
  2. or is contrary to the fundamental principles of the democratic regime of government with the king as head of State
Section 106 (7) The representative in question Political party
5 A petition for a decision concerning the constitutionality of a draft organic act having been approved by the National Assembly Section 141 The National Assembly Constitutionality of draft law
6 A petition for a decision as to whether a draft organic act or act introduced by the council of ministers or representatives bears the principle identical or similar to that which needs to be suppressed Sections 140 and 149 The president of the House of representatives or Senate Constitutionality of draft law
7 A petition for a decision as to
  1. whether
    1. a bill having been approved by the National Assembly by virtue of section 150 but having not yet been submitted to the king by the prime minister,
    2. or a bill having been reapproved by the National Assembly but having not yet been resubmitted to the king by the prime minister,
    is unconstitutional,
  2. or whether its enactment was in compliance with the requirements of the Constitution
Section 154
  • At least one tenth of the existing representatives or senators
  • The prime minister
Constitutionality of draft law
8 A petition for a decision as to
  1. whether the draft rules of order of the House of Representatives, the draft rules of order of the Senate, or the draft rules of order of the National Assembly, which have been approved by the House of Representatives, Senate or National Assembly but have not yet been published in the Government Gazette, are unconstitutional,
  2. or whether their enactment was in compliance with the requirements of the Constitution
Section 155
  • At least one tenth of the existing representatives or senators
  • The prime minister
Constitutionality of draft law
9 A petition for a decision as to whether any motion, motion amendment or action introduced during the House of Representatives, Senate or committee proceedings for consideration of a draft bill on annual expenditure budget, additional expenditure budget or expenditure budget transfer, would allow a representative, Senator or committee member to directly or indirectly be involved in the disbursement of such budget Section 168, paragraph 7 At least one tenth of the existing representatives or senators Others
10 A petition for a decision as to whether any minister individually loses his ministership Section 182
  • At least one tenth of the existing representatives or senators
  • The Election Commission
Membership
11 A petition for a decision as to whether an emergency decree is enacted against section 184, paragraph 1 or 2, of the Constitution Section 185 At least one fifth of the existing representatives or senators Constitutionality of law
12 A petition for a decision as to whether any "written agreement" to be concluded by the executive branch requires prior parliamentary approval because
  1. it contains a provision which would bring about a change in the Thai territory or the extraterritorial areas over which Thailand is competent to exercise sovereignty or jurisdiction by virtue of a written agreement or international law,
  2. its execution requires the enactment of an act,
  3. it would extensively affect national economic or social security,
  4. or it would considerably bind national trade, investment or budget
Section 190 At least one tenth of the existing representatives or senators Authority
13 A petition for a decision as to whether a legal provision to be applied to any case by a court of justice, administrative court or military court is unconstitutional Section 211 A party to such case Constitutionality of law
14 A petition for a decision as to the constitutionality of a legal provision Section 212 Any person whose constitutionally recognised right or freedom has been violated Constitutionality of law
15 A petition for a decision as to a conflict of authority between the National Assembly, the Council of ministers, or two or more constitutional organs other than the courts of justice, administrative courts or military courts Section 214
  • The president of the National Assembly
  • The prime minister
  • The organs in question
Authority
16 A petition for a decision as to whether any election commissioner lacks a qualification, is attacked by a disqualification or has committed a prohibited act Section 233 At least one tenth of the existing representatives or senators Membership
17 A petition for
  1. dissolution of a political party deemed to have attempted to acquire the national government power by the means not recognised by the Constitution,
  2. and disfranchisement of its leader and executive members
Section 237 in conjunction with section 68 Any person Political party
18 A petition for a decision as to the constitutionality of any legal provision Section 245 (1) Ombudsmen Constitutionality of law
19 A petition for a decision as to the constitutionality of any legal provision on grounds of human rights Section 257, paragraph 1 (2) The National Human Rights Commission Constitutionality of law
20 Other matters permitted by legal provisions Others

Composition[edit]

1997 Constitution[edit]

The Constitutional Court was modeled after the Constitutional Court of Italy.[7] According to the 1997 Constitution, the Court had 15 members, all serving for 9-year terms and appointed by the King upon senatorial advice:[8]

  • 5 were judges of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) and selected by the SCJ Plenum through secret ballot.
  • 2 were judges of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) and selected by the SAC Plenum through secret ballot.
  • 5 were experts in law approved by the Senate after having been selected by a special panel. Such panel consisted of the SCJ president, four deans of law, four deans of political science, and four representatives of the political parties whose members are representatives.
  • 3 were experts in political science approved by the Senate after having been selected by the same panel.

2006 Constitution[edit]

According to the 2006 Constitution, the Constitutional Tribunal was established to replace the Constitutional Court which had been dissolved by the Council for Democratic Reform. The Tribunal had 9 members as follows:[9]

  • The SCJ president as president.
  • The SAC president as vice-president.
  • 5 SCJ judges selected by the SCJ plenum through secret ballot.
  • 2 SAC judges selected by the SAC plenum through secret ballot.

Members of the Tribunal[edit]

As from the coming into force of the 2006 Constitution
Name Tenure Basis[10]
Romanised Thai RTGS Start End Reason for office vacation
Ackaratorn Chularat อักขราทร จุฬารัตน Akkharathon Chularat 2006 2008 Operation of section 300 of the 2007 Constitution SAC president
Charan Hathagam จรัญ หัตถกรรม Charan Hatthakam 2006 2008 Operation of section 300 of the 2007 Constitution SAC judge
Kitisak Kitikunpairoj กิติศักดิ์ กิติคุณไพโรจน์ Kitisak Kitikhunphairot 2006 2008 Operation of section 300 of the 2007 Constitution SCJ judge
Krairerk Kasemsan, Mom Luang ไกรฤกษ์ เกษมสันต์, หม่อมหลวง Krai-roek Kasemsan, Mom Luang 2006 2008 Operation of section 300 of the 2007 Constitution SCJ judge
Nurak Marpraneet นุรักษ์ มาประณีต Nurak Mapranit 2006 2008 Operation of section 300 of the 2007 Constitution SCJ judge
Panya Thanomrod ปัญญา ถนอมรอด Panya Thanomrot 2006 2007 Retirement from the office of SCJ president SCJ president
Somchai Pongsata สมชาย พงษธา Somchai Phongsatha 2006 2008 Operation of section 300 of the 2007 Constitution SCJ judge
Thanis Kesawapitak ธานิศ เกศวพิทักษ์ Thanit Ketsawaphithak 2006 2008 Operation of section 300 of the 2007 Constitution SCJ judge
Vichai Chuenchompoonut วิชัย ชื่นชมพูนุท Wichai Chuenchomphunut 2006 2008 Operation of section 300 of the 2007 Constitution SAC judge
Viruch Limvichai วิรัช ลิ้มวิชัย Wirat Limwichai 2007 2008 Operation of section 300 of the 2007 Constitution SCJ president

2007 Constitution[edit]

The diagram shows the composition of the Constitutional Court of Thailand under the 2007 Constitution of Thailand.

After the Constitutional Court was abolished by the Council for Democratic Reform and was replaced by the Constitutional Tribunal under the 2006 Constitution, the 2007 Constitution reestablishes the Constitutional Court and makes various changes to it. The Court is back with greater vigour and is also empowered to introduce to the National Assembly the draft laws concerning the Court itself.[11]

Under the 2007 Constitution, the Constitutional Court has 9 members, all serving for 9-year terms and appointed by the King upon senatorial advice:[12]

  • 3 are SCJ judges and are selected by the SCJ plenum through secret ballot.
  • 2 are SAC judges and are selected by the SAC plenum through secret ballot.
  • 2 are experts in law approved by the Senate after having been selected by a special panel. Such panel is composed of the SCJ president, the SAC president, the president of the House of Representatives, the opposition leader [clarification needed] and one of the chiefs of the constitutional independent agencies (chief ombudsman, president of the election commission, president of the National Anti-Corruption Commission or president of the State Audit Commission).
  • 2 are experts in political science, public administration or other field of social science and are approved by the Senate after having been selected by the same panel.

Members of the Court[edit]

As from the coming into force of the 2007 Constitution
Name Tenure Presidency Basis
Romanised Thai RTGS Start End Reason for office vacation Start End Reason for office vacation
Jaran Pukditanakul จรัญ ภักดีธนากุล Charan Phakdithanakun 2008[13] Expert in law[14]
Charoon Intachan จรูญ อินทจาร Charun Inthachan 2008[13] 2013[15] 2014[16] Resignation[16] SAC judge[17]
Chalermpon Ake-uru เฉลิมพล เอกอุรุ Chaloemphon Ek-uru 2008[13] Expert in political science[17]
Chut Chonlavorn ชัช ชลวร Chat Chonlawon 2008[13] 2008[13] 2011[18] Resignation[18] SCJ judge[17]
Nurak Marpraneet นุรักษ์ มาประณีต Nurak Mapranit 2008[13] SCJ judge[17]
Boonsong Kulbupar บุญส่ง กุลบุปผา Bunsong Kunbuppha 2008[13] SCJ judge[17]
Suphot Khaimuk สุพจน์ ไข่มุกด์ Suphot Khaimuk 2008[13] Expert in political science[17]
Wasan Soypisudh วสันต์ สร้อยพิสุทธิ์ Wasan Soiphisut 2008[13] 2013[19] Resignation[19] 2011[18] 2013[19] Resignation[19] Expert in law[19]
Udomsak Nitimontree อุดมศักดิ์ นิติมนตรี Udomsak Nitimontri 2008[13] SAC judge[17]
Taweekiat Meenakanit ทวีเกียรติ มีนะกนิษฐ Thawikiat Minakanit 2013[15] Expert in law[19]

Key decisions[edit]

Chuan-government emergency decrees during the 1997 economic crisis[edit]

Unconstitutionality of emergency economic decrees[edit]

In its very first decision, the Court ruled on the constitutionality of four emergency executive decrees issued by the Chuan government to deal with the Asian financial crisis.[5] The government had issued the decrees in early May 1998 to expand the role of the Financial Restructuring Authority and the Assets Management Corporation, to settle the debts of the Financial Institutions Development Fund through the issue of 500 billion THB in bonds, and to authorize the ministry of finance to seek 200 billion THB in overseas loans. The opposition New Aspiration Party (NAP) did not have the votes to defeat the bills, and therefore, on the last day of debate, invoked Article 219 of the Constitution to question the constitutionality of an emergency decree.

The NAP argued that since there was no emergency nor necessary urgency (under Article 218(2)), the government could not issue any emergency decrees. Article 219, however, specifically notes the constitutionality of an emergency decree can be questioned only on Article 218(1) concerning the maintenance of national or public safety, national economic security, or to avert public calamity. The government, fearing further economic damage if the decree were delayed, opposed the Court's acceptance of the complaint, as the opposition clearly had failed to cite the proper constitutional clause. The Court wished to set a precedent, however, demonstrating it would accept petitions under Article 219, even if technically inaccurate. Within a day it ruled that it was obvious to the general public that the nation was in an economic crisis, and that the decrees were designed to assist with national economic security in accordance with Article 218(1). The decrees were later quickly approved by Parliament.

The NAP's last minute motion damaged its credibility, and made it unlikely that Article 219 will be invoked unless there is a credible issue and the issue is raised and discussed at the beginning of parliamentary debate, rather than at the last-minute before a vote.

On the other hand, a precedent was established by the Court that it would accept all petitions under Article 219 to preserve Parliament's right to question the constitutionality of emergency executive decrees.

Treaty status of IMF letters of intent[edit]

The NAP later filed impeachment proceedings with the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) against prime minister Chuan Leekpai and the minister of finance Tarrin Nimmanahaeminda for violation of the Constitution.[5] The NAP argued that the letter of intent that the government signed with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to secure emergency financial support was a treaties, and that Article 224 of the Constitution stipulated that the government must receive prior consent from Parliament to enter a treaty.

The NACC determined the issue concerned a constitutional interpretation and petitioned the Constitutional Court for an opinion. The Court ruled the IMF letters were not treaties, as internationally defined, because they were unilateral documents from the Thai government with no rules for enforcement or provisions for penalty. Moreover, the IMF itself had worded the letters in a way that stated that the letters were not contractual agreements.

Appointment of Jaruvan Maintaka as auditor-general[edit]

On 24 June 2003, a petition was filed with the Constitutional Court seeking its decision on the constitutionality of Jaruvan Maintaka’s appointment by the Senate as auditor-general. Jaruvan was one of three nominees for the position of auditor-general in 2001, along with Prathan Dabpet and Nontaphon Nimsomboon. Prathan received 5 votes from the 8-person State Audit Commission (SAC) chairman while Jaruvan received 3 votes. According to the constitution, State Audit Commission chairman Panya Tantiyavarong should have submitted Prathan's nomination to the Senate, as he received the majority of votes. However, on 3 July 2001, the SAC chairman submitted a list of all three candidates for the post of auditor-general to the Senate, which later voted to select Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka.

The Constitutional Court ruled in 6 July 2004 that the selection process that led to the appointment of Jaruvan as auditor-general was unconstitutional. The Court noted that the Constitution empowers the SAC to nominate only one person with the highest number of votes from a simple majority, not three as had been the case. The court stopped short of saying if she had to leave her post.[20] However when the Constitutional Court had ruled on 4 July 2002 that the then Election Commission chairman Sirin Thoopklam’s election to the body was unconstitutional, the president of the Court noted "when the court rules that the selection [process] was unconstitutional and has to be redone, the court requires the incumbent to leave the post".[21]

However, Jaruwan refused to resign without a royal dismissal from king Bhumibol Adulyadej. She noted "I came to take the position as commanded by a royal decision, so I will leave the post only when directed by such a decision."[22] The State Audit Commission later nominated Wisut Montriwat, former deputy permanent secretary of the ministry of finance, for the post of auditor-general. The Senate approved the nomination on 10 May 2005. However, king Bhumibol Adulyadej, in an unprecedented move, withheld his royal assent. The National Assembly did not hold a vote to overthrow the royal veto. In October 2005 the Senate rejected a motion to reaffirm her appointment, and instead deferred the decision to the SAC.[23]

On 15 February 2006 the State Audit Commission (SAC) decided to reinstate auditor-general Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka. Its unanimous decision came after it received a memo from the office of king Bhumibol Adulyadej’s principal private secretary, advising that the situation be resolved.[24]

The controversy led many to reinterpret the political and judicial role of the king in Thailand's constitutional monarchy.

Thaksin Shinawatra's alleged conflicts of interest[edit]

In February 2006, 28 Senators submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court calling for the prime minister's impeachment for conflicts of interest and improprieties in the sell-off of Shin Corporation under Articles 96, 216 and 209 of the Thai constitution.[25] The Senators said the prime minister violated the Constitution and was no longer qualified for office under Article 209. However, the Court rejected the petition on 16 February, with the majority judges saying the petition failed to present sufficient grounds to support the prime minister's alleged misconduct.

Political parties dissolution following the April 2006 election[edit]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "พระราชบัญญัติงบประมาณรายจ่ายประจำปีงบประมาณ พ.ศ. 2556" [Annual Expenditure Budget Act, BE 2556 (2013)] (PDF). Government Gazette (in Thai) (Cabinet secretariat) 129 (93 A): 1. 30 September 2012. Retrieved 2013-10-12. 
  2. ^ "พระราชบัญญัติงบประมาณรายจ่ายประจำปีงบประมาณ พ.ศ. 2557" [Annual Expenditure Budget Act, BE 2557 (2014)] (PDF). Government Gazette (in Thai) (Cabinet Secretariat) 130 (93 A): 1. 2013-10-11. Retrieved 2013-10-12. 
  3. ^ The Nation, Nine Constitution Tribunal members, 7 October 2006
  4. ^ "ข้อกำหนดศาลรัฐธรรมนูญว่าด้วยวิธีพิจารณาและการทำคำวินิจฉัย พ.ศ. 2550 - ข้อ 55 วรรค 1" [Constitutional Court Regulations on Procedure and Decision Making, BE 2550 (2007) - regulation 55, paragraph 1]. Government Gazette (in Thai) (Bangkok: Cabinet Secretariat) (Volume 124, Part 96 A): 28. 2007-12-21. Retrieved 2014-05-13. 
  5. ^ a b c d e f James R. Klein, "The Battle for Rule of Law in Thailand: The Constitutional Court of Thailand", PDF and HTML
  6. ^ "ข้อกำหนดศาลรัฐธรรมนูญว่าด้วยวิธีพิจารณาและการทำคำวินิจฉัย พ.ศ. 2550 [ข้อ 17]" [Constitutional Court Regulations on Procedure and Decision Making, BE 2550 (2007), [Regulation 17]] (pdf). Government Gazette (in Thai) (Cabinet Secretariat) 124 (96 A): 1. 2007-12-21. Retrieved 2014-02-21. 
  7. ^ Andrew Harding, May there be Virtue: ‘New Asian Constitutionalism’ in Thailand, Microsoft Word format and HTML format
  8. ^ "รัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย พุทธศักราช ๒๕๔๐" (in Thai). Council of State of Thailand. 2006-09-14. Retrieved 2013-09-20. 
  9. ^ "รัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย (ฉบับชั่วคราว) พุทธศักราช ๒๕๔๙" (pdf) (in Thai). Cabinet Secretariat. 2006-10-01. Retrieved 2013-09-20. 
  10. ^ "ประกาศ ลงวันที่ 1 พฤศจิกายน 2549" [Announcement of 1 November 2006] (pdf) (in Thai). Cabinet Secretariat. 2006-11-07. Retrieved 2013-09-20. 
  11. ^ Council of State of Thailand (2007). "Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, Buddhist Era 2550 (2007)". Asian Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2013-12-14. "Section 139. An organic law bill may be introduced only by the following...(3) the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Justice or other independent Constitutional organisation by through the President of such Court or of such organizations whom having charge and control of the execution of the organic law." 
  12. ^ "องค์ประกอบของศาลรัฐธรรมนูญตามรัฐธรรมนูญแห่งราชอาณาจักรไทย พุทธศักราช 2550" (in Thai). Constitutional Court. n.d. Retrieved 2013-09-20. 
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h i j "ประกาศแต่งตั้งประธานศาลรัฐธรรมนูญและตุลาการศาลรัฐธรรมนูญ ลงวันที่ 28 พฤษภาคม 2551" [Proclamation on Appointment of President and Judges of the Constitutional Court dated 28 May 2008] (PDF) (in Thai). Cabinet Secretariat. 2008-06-27. Retrieved 2013-09-20. 
  14. ^ "จรัญ ภักดีธนากุล" [Jaran Pukditanakul] (in Thai). DailyNews. 2012-05-19. Retrieved 2013-09-20. 
  15. ^ a b "ประกาศแต่งตั้งประธานศาลรัฐธรรมนูญและตุลาการศาลรัฐธรรมนูญ ลงวันที่ 21 ตุลาคม 2556" [Proclamation on Appointment of President and Judges of the Constitutional Court dated 21 October 2013] (PDF) (in Thai). Cabinet Secretariat. 2013-10-31. Retrieved 2013-11-01. 
  16. ^ a b "ผลการประชุมคณะตุลาการศาลรัฐธรรมนูญ วันพุธที่ 21 พฤษภาคม 2557" [Constitutional Court meeting, Wednesday, 21 May 2014] (PDF) (in Thai). Constitutional Court. 2014-05-21. Retrieved 2014-05-21. 
  17. ^ a b c d e f g "สัจจะไม่มีในหมู่โจร" [No honour among thieves] (in Thai). Manager. 2011-07-27. Retrieved 2013-09-20. 
  18. ^ a b c "ประกาศแต่งตั้งประธานศาลรัฐธรรมนูญ ลงวันที่ 26 ตุลาคม 2554" [Proclamation on Appointment of President of the Constitutional Court dated 26 October 2011] (PDF) (in Thai). Cabinet Secretariat. 2011-11-17. Retrieved 2013-09-20. 
  19. ^ a b c d e f "ประกาศคณะกรรมการสรรหาตุลาการศาลรัฐธรรมนูญ ลงวันที่ 5 สิงหาคม 2556" [Announcement of the Constitutional Judge Recruitment Panel dated 5 August 2013] (PDF) (in Thai). Senate of Thailand. n.d. Retrieved 2013-09-20. 
  20. ^ Chronology of events in the auditor-general’s deadlock, The Nation August 30, 2005
  21. ^ The Nation, "Jaruvan again in eye of the storm", 2 June 2006
  22. ^ Jaruvan waits for royal word, Nation September 9, 2005
  23. ^ Senate steers clear of motion on Jaruvan, The Nation, 11 October 2005
  24. ^ Poll booths 'the decider', Bangkok Post Friday May 5, 2006
  25. ^ Xinhua, Students submit voters petition to impeach Thai PM, 29 July 2006

External links[edit]

Websites
E-books